The Keystone XL Pipeline is still being delayed at the hand of Obama, being spurred on by the multiple environmental groups who see "environmental problems" ahead with the construction of the pipeline. Even if there were major problems (which there aren't), there is one good reason why we should approve the pipeline nevertheless: China.

As this explains:

Canada has signaled it would re-route the pipeline to the West Coast and sell oil to China, which has already invested heavily in the tar sands.[1]

I think most of you can guess why this would be even worse than routing it through the US. China has a lot fewer environmental regulations than the US does, meaning that if the pipeline were routed through Canada and distrubuted through China, then the environmental damage would be a lot more prevalent in China than it would be if the tar sands were to be distrubuted through the US.

And what is the benefit if we build the pipeline here:

An independent study estimates that during the life of the project, the Keystone XL project is expected to stimulate:

*More than $20 billion in new spending for the U.S. economy;*More than 118,000 person-years of employment;*An increase of $6.5 billion in the personal income of Americans;*Increased gross output (product) of $9.6 billion; and*More than $585 million in state and local taxes in the states along the pipeline route.

"This project will also play an important role in linking a secure and growing supply of Canadian crude oil with the largest refining markets in the United States, significantly improving North American energy security, added Girling.[2]

So basically, we can build the pipeline and the environment will sustain fewer problems (if any at all) and we will get significant economic and revenue benefits.

Obama's buddy Warren Buffett stands to make a pretty penny, as his recently acquired Burlington Northern railroad is going to be hauling the oil now.Blatant cronyism. So blatant it's almost unbelievable.

"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

At 1/13/2013 6:00:18 PM, Subutai wrote:The Keystone XL Pipeline is still being delayed at the hand of Obama, being spurred on by the multiple environmental groups who see "environmental problems" ahead with the construction of the pipeline. Even if there were major problems (which there aren't), there is one good reason why we should approve the pipeline nevertheless: China.

As this explains:

Canada has signaled it would re-route the pipeline to the West Coast and sell oil to China, which has already invested heavily in the tar sands.[1]

I think most of you can guess why this would be even worse than routing it through the US. China has a lot fewer environmental regulations than the US does, meaning that if the pipeline were routed through Canada and distrubuted through China, then the environmental damage would be a lot more prevalent in China than it would be if the tar sands were to be distrubuted through the US.

And what is the benefit if we build the pipeline here:

An independent study estimates that during the life of the project, the Keystone XL project is expected to stimulate:

*More than $20 billion in new spending for the U.S. economy;*More than 118,000 person-years of employment;*An increase of $6.5 billion in the personal income of Americans;*Increased gross output (product) of $9.6 billion; and*More than $585 million in state and local taxes in the states along the pipeline route.

"This project will also play an important role in linking a secure and growing supply of Canadian crude oil with the largest refining markets in the United States, significantly improving North American energy security, added Girling.[2]

So basically, we can build the pipeline and the environment will sustain fewer problems (if any at all) and we will get significant economic and revenue benefits.

Who cares about the environment, we need an economic boost now! (Completely serious)

"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush

Trans Canada said this would require about $4-6 billion in investment for the pipeline. However, be redirecting oil, it would increase oil prices particularly in the Midwest, and from Trans Canada, would raise the oil prices for the Midwest by $6 billion per year.

So, because of higher energy costs, it would cause an economic slump, and the one year infusion of funds would be thwarted by higher energy costs. It would be an economic depressant, specifically for the Midwest. It would come right at a time when this area of the United States is recovering.

So I disagree with the Keystone Pipeline push.

And why was your account closed?

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

At 1/13/2013 6:00:18 PM, Subutai wrote:The Keystone XL Pipeline is still being delayed at the hand of Obama, being spurred on by the multiple environmental groups who see "environmental problems" ahead with the construction of the pipeline. Even if there were major problems (which there aren't), there is one good reason why we should approve the pipeline nevertheless: China.

As this explains:

Canada has signaled it would re-route the pipeline to the West Coast and sell oil to China, which has already invested heavily in the tar sands.[1]

I think most of you can guess why this would be even worse than routing it through the US. China has a lot fewer environmental regulations than the US does, meaning that if the pipeline were routed through Canada and distrubuted through China, then the environmental damage would be a lot more prevalent in China than it would be if the tar sands were to be distrubuted through the US.

And what is the benefit if we build the pipeline here:

An independent study estimates that during the life of the project, the Keystone XL project is expected to stimulate:

*More than $20 billion in new spending for the U.S. economy;*More than 118,000 person-years of employment;*An increase of $6.5 billion in the personal income of Americans;*Increased gross output (product) of $9.6 billion; and*More than $585 million in state and local taxes in the states along the pipeline route.

"This project will also play an important role in linking a secure and growing supply of Canadian crude oil with the largest refining markets in the United States, significantly improving North American energy security, added Girling.[2]

So basically, we can build the pipeline and the environment will sustain fewer problems (if any at all) and we will get significant economic and revenue benefits.

At 1/13/2013 6:08:06 PM, lewis20 wrote:Obama's buddy Warren Buffett stands to make a pretty penny, as his recently acquired Burlington Northern railroad is going to be hauling the oil now.Blatant cronyism. So blatant it's almost unbelievable.

I know. Obama doesn't care about saving the environment. He cares about giving money and power (through monopolies) to his supporters.

Yeah. The capitalistic system is the cause of monopolies!

I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.

At 1/13/2013 6:00:18 PM, Subutai wrote:The Keystone XL Pipeline is still being delayed at the hand of Obama, being spurred on by the multiple environmental groups who see "environmental problems" ahead with the construction of the pipeline. Even if there were major problems (which there aren't), there is one good reason why we should approve the pipeline nevertheless: China.

As this explains:

Canada has signaled it would re-route the pipeline to the West Coast and sell oil to China, which has already invested heavily in the tar sands.[1]

I think most of you can guess why this would be even worse than routing it through the US. China has a lot fewer environmental regulations than the US does, meaning that if the pipeline were routed through Canada and distrubuted through China, then the environmental damage would be a lot more prevalent in China than it would be if the tar sands were to be distrubuted through the US.

And what is the benefit if we build the pipeline here:

An independent study estimates that during the life of the project, the Keystone XL project is expected to stimulate:

*More than $20 billion in new spending for the U.S. economy;*More than 118,000 person-years of employment;*An increase of $6.5 billion in the personal income of Americans;*Increased gross output (product) of $9.6 billion; and*More than $585 million in state and local taxes in the states along the pipeline route.

"This project will also play an important role in linking a secure and growing supply of Canadian crude oil with the largest refining markets in the United States, significantly improving North American energy security, added Girling.[2]

So basically, we can build the pipeline and the environment will sustain fewer problems (if any at all) and we will get significant economic and revenue benefits.

Trans Canada said this would require about $4-6 billion in investment for the pipeline. However, be redirecting oil, it would increase oil prices particularly in the Midwest, and from Trans Canada, would raise the oil prices for the Midwest by $6 billion per year.

That claim is false:

Recently, for example, oil that is imported and sold on the U.S. Gulf Coast is trading around $90U.S. per barrel. Western Canadian oil is currently trading for $70 U.S. per barrel.[1]

In addition, Currently, over 20 percent of our imported oil comes from Canada... Once the pipeline is completed, over 33 percent of our imported oil will come from Canada.[2]

So, because of higher energy costs, it would cause an economic slump, and the one year infusion of funds would be thwarted by higher energy costs. It would be an economic depressant, specifically for the Midwest. It would come right at a time when this area of the United States is recovering.

Actually,

A 2009 report from the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute similarly concludes that

As investment and production in oil sands ramps up in Canada, the pace of economic activity quickens and demand for US goods and services increase rapidly, resulting in an estimated 343 thousand new US jobs between 2011 and 2015. Demand for U.S. goods and services continues to climb throughout the period, adding an estimated $34 billion to US GDP in 2015, $40.4 billion in 2020, and $42.2 billion in 2025.97[3] (NOTE: This is mostly the Keystone XL Pipeline. Some is other pipelines.)

Gasoline is cheaper in the Midwest because the only way to transport North Dakota and central Canada oil is by expensive rail tank cars. The oil companies cut prices to increase Midwest demand, because it's cheaper than shipping it all. Building the pipeline would increase Midwest prices (I gather about 20 cents per gallon for gas) but it would lower prices in the rest of the country, and lower prices overall. The net losers would be rail shipping.

The US has an overall shortage of pipelines. As oil shale production ramps up, the shortage will drive up prices.

At 1/16/2013 12:08:42 AM, RoyLatham wrote:Gasoline is cheaper in the Midwest because the only way to transport North Dakota and central Canada oil is by expensive rail tank cars. The oil companies cut prices to increase Midwest demand, because it's cheaper than shipping it all. Building the pipeline would increase Midwest prices (I gather about 20 cents per gallon for gas) but it would lower prices in the rest of the country, and lower prices overall. The net losers would be rail shipping.

The US has an overall shortage of pipelines. As oil shale production ramps up, the shortage will drive up prices.

I thought all the oil refineries were on the coast though, that all the oil had to flow through there anyway.

"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

Trans Canada said this would require about $4-6 billion in investment for the pipeline. However, be redirecting oil, it would increase oil prices particularly in the Midwest, and from Trans Canada, would raise the oil prices for the Midwest by $6 billion per year.

That claim is false:

Recently, for example, oil that is imported and sold on the U.S. Gulf Coast is trading around $90U.S. per barrel. Western Canadian oil is currently trading for $70 U.S. per barrel.[1]

In addition, Currently, over 20 percent of our imported oil comes from Canada... Once the pipeline is completed, over 33 percent of our imported oil will come from Canada.[2]

Doesn't refute my point.

Independent study shows that although KXL would create about 4,000 temporary jobs, the increases in the cost of oil for the Midwest would reduce national employment.

So, because of higher energy costs, it would cause an economic slump, and the one year infusion of funds would be thwarted by higher energy costs. It would be an economic depressant, specifically for the Midwest. It would come right at a time when this area of the United States is recovering.

Actually,

A 2009 report from the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute similarly concludes that

As investment and production in oil sands ramps up in Canada, the pace of economic activity quickens and demand for US goods and services increase rapidly, resulting in an estimated 343 thousand new US jobs between 2011 and 2015. Demand for U.S. goods and services continues to climb throughout the period, adding an estimated $34 billion to US GDP in 2015, $40.4 billion in 2020, and $42.2 billion in 2025.97[3] (NOTE: This is mostly the Keystone XL Pipeline. Some is other pipelines.)

First, since the cost of adding KXL is only a one year cost of $4 billion, I highly, highly doubt that it would increase GDP by up to $40 billion. That's absurd.

The State Department also found that it would only (KXL) create about 4,500-7,500 temporary jobs and raise oil prices, mostly for the Midwest again.

And that's before the increase in oil prices, which the study I indicated has pointed out!

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

Trans Canada said this would require about $4-6 billion in investment for the pipeline. However, be redirecting oil, it would increase oil prices particularly in the Midwest, and from Trans Canada, would raise the oil prices for the Midwest by $6 billion per year.

That claim is false:

Recently, for example, oil that is imported and sold on the U.S. Gulf Coast is trading around $90U.S. per barrel. Western Canadian oil is currently trading for $70 U.S. per barrel.[1]

In addition, Currently, over 20 percent of our imported oil comes from Canada... Once the pipeline is completed, over 33 percent of our imported oil will come from Canada.[2]

Doesn't refute my point.

Yes it does. We will be getting more oil at a cheaper price, doubling the price decline as both supply goes up, and equilibrium price goes down.

Independent study shows that although KXL would create about 4,000 temporary jobs, the increases in the cost of oil for the Midwest would reduce national employment.

Even if it was $4 billion (which is immediate), it would still be a lot more relative to long term investment: "The benefits of the Keystone XL pipeline would be concentrated largely in the pipeline states themselves," said Wade. "These areas could see an increase in gross domestic product by as much as $3.1 billion as well as an increase in business sales by as much as $6 billion."[1] That's $9.1 billion in immediate costs; we aren't even factoring in the long-term benefits.

Also a good study. Just like that other one I posted earlier.

So, because of higher energy costs, it would cause an economic slump, and the one year infusion of funds would be thwarted by higher energy costs. It would be an economic depressant, specifically for the Midwest. It would come right at a time when this area of the United States is recovering.

Actually,

A 2009 report from the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute similarly concludes that

As investment and production in oil sands ramps up in Canada, the pace of economic activity quickens and demand for US goods and services increase rapidly, resulting in an estimated 343 thousand new US jobs between 2011 and 2015. Demand for U.S. goods and services continues to climb throughout the period, adding an estimated $34 billion to US GDP in 2015, $40.4 billion in 2020, and $42.2 billion in 2025.97[3] (NOTE: This is mostly the Keystone XL Pipeline. Some is other pipelines.)

First, since the cost of adding KXL is only a one year cost of $4 billion, I highly, highly doubt that it would increase GDP by up to $40 billion. That's absurd.

NOTE: This partially comes from the Keystone XL Pipeline. If built, we could have some (a sizable amount too) of these benefits.

The State Department also found that it would only (KXL) create about 4,500-7,500 temporary jobs and raise oil prices, mostly for the Midwest again.

And the US Chamber of Commerce also found that it (KXL) would create 250,000 permanent U.S. jobs.

And that's before the increase in oil prices, which the study I indicated has pointed out!

But as RoyLatham pointed out: Gasoline is cheaper in the Midwest because the only way to transport North Dakota and central Canada oil is by expensive rail tank cars. The oil companies cut prices to increase Midwest demand, because it's cheaper than shipping it all. Building the pipeline would increase Midwest prices (I gather about 20 cents per gallon for gas) but it would lower prices in the rest of the country, and lower prices overall. The net losers would be rail shipping.

So I disagree with the Keystone Pipeline push.

Therefore, you are ignoring the laws of supply and demand.

No, just seeing it on a more specific level.

Yes. More supply (oil) and the same amount of demand (in the short run) means lower prices.

At 1/13/2013 6:00:18 PM, Subutai wrote:The Keystone XL Pipeline is still being delayed at the hand of Obama, being spurred on by the multiple environmental groups who see "environmental problems" ahead with the construction of the pipeline. Even if there were major problems (which there aren't), there is one good reason why we should approve the pipeline nevertheless: China.

As this explains:

Canada has signaled it would re-route the pipeline to the West Coast and sell oil to China, which has already invested heavily in the tar sands.[1]

I think most of you can guess why this would be even worse than routing it through the US. China has a lot fewer environmental regulations than the US does, meaning that if the pipeline were routed through Canada and distrubuted through China, then the environmental damage would be a lot more prevalent in China than it would be if the tar sands were to be distrubuted through the US.

And what is the benefit if we build the pipeline here:

An independent study estimates that during the life of the project, the Keystone XL project is expected to stimulate:

*More than $20 billion in new spending for the U.S. economy;*More than 118,000 person-years of employment;*An increase of $6.5 billion in the personal income of Americans;*Increased gross output (product) of $9.6 billion; and*More than $585 million in state and local taxes in the states along the pipeline route.

"This project will also play an important role in linking a secure and growing supply of Canadian crude oil with the largest refining markets in the United States, significantly improving North American energy security, added Girling.[2]

So basically, we can build the pipeline and the environment will sustain fewer problems (if any at all) and we will get significant economic and revenue benefits.

I am serious and the pipeline produces jobs now, and a more stable oil supply later.

"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush

At 1/13/2013 6:00:18 PM, Subutai wrote:The Keystone XL Pipeline is still being delayed at the hand of Obama, being spurred on by the multiple environmental groups who see "environmental problems" ahead with the construction of the pipeline. Even if there were major problems (which there aren't), there is one good reason why we should approve the pipeline nevertheless: China.

As this explains:

Canada has signaled it would re-route the pipeline to the West Coast and sell oil to China, which has already invested heavily in the tar sands.[1]

I think most of you can guess why this would be even worse than routing it through the US. China has a lot fewer environmental regulations than the US does, meaning that if the pipeline were routed through Canada and distrubuted through China, then the environmental damage would be a lot more prevalent in China than it would be if the tar sands were to be distrubuted through the US.

And what is the benefit if we build the pipeline here:

An independent study estimates that during the life of the project, the Keystone XL project is expected to stimulate:

*More than $20 billion in new spending for the U.S. economy;*More than 118,000 person-years of employment;*An increase of $6.5 billion in the personal income of Americans;*Increased gross output (product) of $9.6 billion; and*More than $585 million in state and local taxes in the states along the pipeline route.

"This project will also play an important role in linking a secure and growing supply of Canadian crude oil with the largest refining markets in the United States, significantly improving North American energy security, added Girling.[2]

So basically, we can build the pipeline and the environment will sustain fewer problems (if any at all) and we will get significant economic and revenue benefits.

At 1/13/2013 6:00:18 PM, Subutai wrote:The Keystone XL Pipeline is still being delayed at the hand of Obama, being spurred on by the multiple environmental groups who see "environmental problems" ahead with the construction of the pipeline. Even if there were major problems (which there aren't), there is one good reason why we should approve the pipeline nevertheless: China.

As this explains:

Canada has signaled it would re-route the pipeline to the West Coast and sell oil to China, which has already invested heavily in the tar sands.[1]

I think most of you can guess why this would be even worse than routing it through the US. China has a lot fewer environmental regulations than the US does, meaning that if the pipeline were routed through Canada and distrubuted through China, then the environmental damage would be a lot more prevalent in China than it would be if the tar sands were to be distrubuted through the US.

And what is the benefit if we build the pipeline here:

An independent study estimates that during the life of the project, the Keystone XL project is expected to stimulate:

*More than $20 billion in new spending for the U.S. economy;*More than 118,000 person-years of employment;*An increase of $6.5 billion in the personal income of Americans;*Increased gross output (product) of $9.6 billion; and*More than $585 million in state and local taxes in the states along the pipeline route.

"This project will also play an important role in linking a secure and growing supply of Canadian crude oil with the largest refining markets in the United States, significantly improving North American energy security, added Girling.[2]

So basically, we can build the pipeline and the environment will sustain fewer problems (if any at all) and we will get significant economic and revenue benefits.

I am serious and the pipeline produces jobs now, and a more stable oil supply later.

I agree with you about the pipeline.

I'm arguing with you about how you can possibly justify not caring about the environment.

If it holds us back then why should we care? I'm not for trashing the world, but why do we protect animals like polar bears, and why do we prevent delay extremely important projects for years just to do an environmental study. I'm sick of environmentalists holding up energy independence!

"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush

At 1/13/2013 6:00:18 PM, Subutai wrote:The Keystone XL Pipeline is still being delayed at the hand of Obama, being spurred on by the multiple environmental groups who see "environmental problems" ahead with the construction of the pipeline. Even if there were major problems (which there aren't), there is one good reason why we should approve the pipeline nevertheless: China.

As this explains:

Canada has signaled it would re-route the pipeline to the West Coast and sell oil to China, which has already invested heavily in the tar sands.[1]

I think most of you can guess why this would be even worse than routing it through the US. China has a lot fewer environmental regulations than the US does, meaning that if the pipeline were routed through Canada and distrubuted through China, then the environmental damage would be a lot more prevalent in China than it would be if the tar sands were to be distrubuted through the US.

And what is the benefit if we build the pipeline here:

An independent study estimates that during the life of the project, the Keystone XL project is expected to stimulate:

*More than $20 billion in new spending for the U.S. economy;*More than 118,000 person-years of employment;*An increase of $6.5 billion in the personal income of Americans;*Increased gross output (product) of $9.6 billion; and*More than $585 million in state and local taxes in the states along the pipeline route.

"This project will also play an important role in linking a secure and growing supply of Canadian crude oil with the largest refining markets in the United States, significantly improving North American energy security, added Girling.[2]

So basically, we can build the pipeline and the environment will sustain fewer problems (if any at all) and we will get significant economic and revenue benefits.

I am serious and the pipeline produces jobs now, and a more stable oil supply later.

I agree with you about the pipeline.

I'm arguing with you about how you can possibly justify not caring about the environment.

If it holds us back then why should we care? I'm not for trashing the world, but why do we protect animals like polar bears, and why do we prevent delay extremely important projects for years just to do an environmental study.

This is the most sick, perverted, and psychopathic view that any person can have. Stop acting as if humans are the pinnacle of everything and the Earth is just ours for taking. Everything has future effects, especially fvcking up everything.

I'm sick of environmentalists holding up energy independence!

Energy independence is an unfeasible task, assuming you're talking about oil, natural gas, and coal. Within the next 100 years, there won't be enough resources left to sustain the electricity consumption of everybody. We are already past the Hubbert Peak in oil reserves, and with the magic of growth, we will be going faster down the curve at any given moment than anybody has ever done in the history of the Earth. Exponential growth will even make us more screwed. If you want a future, then supporting new methods of generating electricity is the most sane solution.

"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."

Actually the world is ours for the taking, that's the principle of natural selection

Also we have plenty of coal and natural gas for over 100 years, but much of it we cannot use because of environmentalists, and I do support alternative energy as I am probably on of the biggest supporters of nuclear power on this site!

"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush

Tmar19652, I agree with you that energy independence is acheivable and should be acheived, but we don't have an endless supply of fossil fuels. We are sooner or later going to have to switch to renewable sources of energy.

I am appalled by the fact that you think the environment is just ours for the taking. Being an extreme anti-Green, I am against most environmental policies and beliefs, but the environment does need protecting.

I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.

If the animals disagree with us, then tell them to stop us. Natural selection at work. Also I told you I was for alternative energy, such as nuclear.

"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush

At 1/19/2013 6:03:44 AM, tmar19652 wrote:Actually the world is ours for the taking, that's the principle of natural selection

Also we have plenty of coal and natural gas for over 100 years, but much of it we cannot use because of environmentalists, and I do support alternative energy as I am probably on of the biggest supporters of nuclear power on this site!

I'm not sure what you are claiming. The article was from 1978 and pointed to the low chance of discovering enough oil in the world to last through 2010. So?

The oil shale in the U.S. amounts to about as much oil as has ever been pumped in history. One important thing is that it is now economically recoverable at present prices. President Obama has cut oil production in half on Federal lands, but so far hasn't managed to hold down production on private land. The result is that US production is increasing at such a rate that we'll probably have energy independence by 2020.

Traditionally, oil production has been controlled by the states, which is why the Democrats have had so much trouble stopping it. The EPA is working on regulations to control fracking, and interstate pipelines can be blocked. It's not clear that the EPA will have the nerve to such down production, because there a lot of Democrat congressmen in oil states who aren't eager to lose the tax money that would accrue to their state.

The environmental dangers of pipelines are about zero. There are occasional small leaks, but the idea of penetrating 200 feet of rock to pollute the ground water is nonsense.

Eventually oil will run out. My guess is that space station solar and advanced battery technology will take over, maybe in 75-100 years. The transition will be gradual, so the market will work out the best alternatives. Just keep government out of it.

I'm not sure what you are claiming. The article was from 1978 and pointed to the low chance of discovering enough oil in the world to last through 2010. So?

The oil shale in the U.S. amounts to about as much oil as has ever been pumped in history. One important thing is that it is now economically recoverable at present prices. President Obama has cut oil production in half on Federal lands, but so far hasn't managed to hold down production on private land. The result is that US production is increasing at such a rate that we'll probably have energy independence by 2020.

Traditionally, oil production has been controlled by the states, which is why the Democrats have had so much trouble stopping it. The EPA is working on regulations to control fracking, and interstate pipelines can be blocked. It's not clear that the EPA will have the nerve to such down production, because there a lot of Democrat congressmen in oil states who aren't eager to lose the tax money that would accrue to their state.

The environmental dangers of pipelines are about zero. There are occasional small leaks, but the idea of penetrating 200 feet of rock to pollute the ground water is nonsense.

Eventually oil will run out. My guess is that space station solar and advanced battery technology will take over, maybe in 75-100 years. The transition will be gradual, so the market will work out the best alternatives. Just keep government out of it.

This^

"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush

I'm not sure what you are claiming. The article was from 1978 and pointed to the low chance of discovering enough oil in the world to last through 2010. So?

The oil shale in the U.S. amounts to about as much oil as has ever been pumped in history. One important thing is that it is now economically recoverable at present prices. President Obama has cut oil production in half on Federal lands, but so far hasn't managed to hold down production on private land. The result is that US production is increasing at such a rate that we'll probably have energy independence by 2020.

Traditionally, oil production has been controlled by the states, which is why the Democrats have had so much trouble stopping it. The EPA is working on regulations to control fracking, and interstate pipelines can be blocked. It's not clear that the EPA will have the nerve to such down production, because there a lot of Democrat congressmen in oil states who aren't eager to lose the tax money that would accrue to their state.

The environmental dangers of pipelines are about zero. There are occasional small leaks, but the idea of penetrating 200 feet of rock to pollute the ground water is nonsense.

Eventually oil will run out. My guess is that space station solar and advanced battery technology will take over, maybe in 75-100 years. The transition will be gradual, so the market will work out the best alternatives. Just keep government out of it.

You do realize that I don't disagree with any of this, right?

"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."

Environmental regulations don't make oil a clean energy, they just reduce its use. But the use is implied by the importation; it's not as if the US intends to import it just to put it in a museum. So basic market principles apply. If the most efficient way to get the oil to market includes piping it to the US, then eliminating that option, even if substituted for by trucking it to the US or rerouting it to the Pacific, hence to China, constitutes added cost, thus higher prices, thus lower demand. Slowing climate change is infinitely more important than the best man winning in the battle between pipe-makers and highway-makers.

At 1/13/2013 6:00:18 PM, Subutai wrote:The Keystone XL Pipeline is still being delayed at the hand of Obama, being spurred on by the multiple environmental groups who see "environmental problems" ahead with the construction of the pipeline. Even if there were major problems (which there aren't), there is one good reason why we should approve the pipeline nevertheless: China.

As this explains:

Canada has signaled it would re-route the pipeline to the West Coast and sell oil to China, which has already invested heavily in the tar sands.[1]

I think most of you can guess why this would be even worse than routing it through the US. China has a lot fewer environmental regulations than the US does, meaning that if the pipeline were routed through Canada and distrubuted through China, then the environmental damage would be a lot more prevalent in China than it would be if the tar sands were to be distrubuted through the US.

And what is the benefit if we build the pipeline here:

An independent study estimates that during the life of the project, the Keystone XL project is expected to stimulate:

*More than $20 billion in new spending for the U.S. economy;*More than 118,000 person-years of employment;*An increase of $6.5 billion in the personal income of Americans;*Increased gross output (product) of $9.6 billion; and*More than $585 million in state and local taxes in the states along the pipeline route.

"This project will also play an important role in linking a secure and growing supply of Canadian crude oil with the largest refining markets in the United States, significantly improving North American energy security, added Girling.[2]

So basically, we can build the pipeline and the environment will sustain fewer problems (if any at all) and we will get significant economic and revenue benefits.

At 1/22/2013 11:20:27 AM, CarefulNow wrote:Environmental regulations don't make oil a clean energy, they just reduce its use. But the use is implied by the importation; it's not as if the US intends to import it just to put it in a museum. So basic market principles apply. If the most efficient way to get the oil to market includes piping it to the US, then eliminating that option, even if substituted for by trucking it to the US or rerouting it to the Pacific, hence to China, constitutes added cost, thus higher prices, thus lower demand. Slowing climate change is infinitely more important than the best man winning in the battle between pipe-makers and highway-makers.

But the Keystone XL Pipeline does not contribute to climate change; what is important is that accepting the pipeline will not only bring more oil to us at cheaper prices, but will help the environment through less opportunity costs.

I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.

At 1/22/2013 7:55:32 PM, Subutai wrote:But the Keystone XL Pipeline does not contribute to climate change; what is important is that accepting the pipeline will not only bring more oil to us at cheaper prices, but will help the environment through less opportunity costs.

Could you be more specific? What opportunities (besides the opportunity to build a pipeline that will, as you say, accelerate dirty tar sands oil production and lower oil prices, thus increasing demand, thus accelerating emissions) does rejection of the pipeline cost, how is it bad for the environment, and by what calculus do conclude that such harm exceeds the aforementioned consequences of the pipeline.

At 1/22/2013 7:55:32 PM, Subutai wrote:But the Keystone XL Pipeline does not contribute to climate change; what is important is that accepting the pipeline will not only bring more oil to us at cheaper prices, but will help the environment through less opportunity costs.

Could you be more specific? What opportunities (besides the opportunity to build a pipeline that will, as you say, accelerate dirty tar sands oil production and lower oil prices, thus increasing demand, thus accelerating emissions) does rejection of the pipeline cost, how is it bad for the environment, and by what calculus do conclude that such harm exceeds the aforementioned consequences of the pipeline.

Jobs building the pipelineJobs maintaining the pipelineJobs in refineriesLower gas prices

Also, no one has proven the pipeline is bad for the environment, and even if they do, environmental protection is a completely moral issue, so you would need to substantiate why it is better to protect the environment.

"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush